TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Keister v. Turkevich
Docket No. 26-ST-081
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
JUDGE:
Good afternoon. This is the matter of Keister versus Turkevich, docket
26-ST-081. I understand that we have plaintiff present on WebEx as well
as the defendant. So good afternoon to both of you. And I'm going to ask
if either of you can unblock your cameras. But... Okay. Thank you. Thank
you both, and if you could keep those on for the duration of the
hearing. So I'm gonna start with the plaintiff. Are you seeking a final
order in this case?
MS. KEISTER:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
And I'm going to ask the defendant, are you opposing a final order in
this case?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
All right. Opposing it. So, um, both of you — Ms. Keister, am I
pronouncing your name correctly?
MS. KEISTER:
You are, yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Ms. Turkevich, did I say that correctly?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yeah, Turkevich is good.
JUDGE:
How do you say it?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Oh, no, I was saying that's good. Turkevich instead of Turkevich.
JUDGE:
All right. So Ms. Keister, the burden is on you to show the court by a
preponderance of the evidence why the court should issue a final order
against stalking in this case. So I'm going to ask you to raise your
hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give now
under consideration shall be the truth under the pains and penalty of
perjury?
MS. KEISTER:
Yes.
JUDGE:
Okay. And for the record, can you please state your name?
MS. KEISTER:
Samantha Keister.
JUDGE:
What is your relationship to the defendant? You can put your hand down
now. Thank you.
MS. KEISTER:
I, um... I am an ex-girlfriend of her ex-boyfriend, and there's a
criminal case pending against him. His name's Tarl Warwick.
JUDGE:
Okay. Thank you. And can you please — this is your chance to prove your
burden. So if you could testify and let the court know what incidents
and what conduct the defendant allegedly engaged in that support an
order against stalking.
MS. KEISTER:
Um, do you all still have the first exhibit originally filed with the
motion?
JUDGE:
So I'm going to — I'm going to let both of you know that just because
exhibits are filed in connection with a motion, that doesn't mean that
they're admitted at an evidentiary hearing today. At an evidentiary
hearing, each party, if you're looking to offer into evidence a
document, you need to lay an evidentiary foundation under Vermont rules
of evidence. So anything that you pre-filed — it doesn't... just because
it's there, you still need to present it to the court and lay a
foundation before the document or the exhibit can be admitted.
MS. KEISTER:
So how do I go about doing that?
JUDGE:
So I can't give you any legal advice because I also can't give the
defendant advice. Are you in a room there? I know you're at News Store.
MS. KEISTER:
I'm gonna mute the mic just for one moment, Your Honor.
MS. TURKEVICH:
Uh, can I speak on this, Your Honor?
JUDGE:
What, what, what — what would you like to say?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Well, what I'm saying is, um, I created an account, and I tried to
submit the evidence, and then I couldn't get past the part where it
asked for the litigant's name. I thought the litigant's name would be
in, you know, on the Vermont gov — you know, the, where I'm supposed to
put in the evidence, and I just wasn't able to. I couldn't get past that
point because maybe it's because this is just a case. Isn't this just an
appeal, right? I, I, I was unable to submit the evidence. Is this — but
I tried through the means that the —
JUDGE:
There is evidence that you do have to introduce at today's hearing?
MS. TURKEVICH:
I have a couple screenshots for context.
JUDGE:
Okay. So are you asking for a continuance —
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes —
JUDGE:
— in order to try to upload those proposed exhibits into —
MS. TURKEVICH:
No. No, not yet, Your Honor. Um, I was just commenting that I was unable
to provide evidence, so it looks like she wasn't able to either, so.
JUDGE:
Well, let me, let me say this. If we start the hearing and I start
hearing testimony, we're gonna finish the hearing today. If you're
saying that there are some exhibits that you would like to use, we could
reschedule the hearing for another day so that you can try to upload
those into the portal. But it's one or the other. You're either asking
for a continuance or you're willing to go forward.
MS. KEISTER:
I'm not asking for a continuance. Thank you for explaining.
JUDGE:
Okay. Ms. Keister.
MS. KEISTER:
Yes, Your Honor. Um, I would like to enter into evidence exhibit five
that I submitted. It shows that Nikki Turkevich posted my address
publicly online and to surveil and monitor me. I —
JUDGE:
So are you —
MS. KEISTER:
The original request that I asked for — I provided the screenshot of her
asking people to monitor and surveil me and find out what I do for work.
JUDGE:
So you're trying — right now we're on — you're talking about exhibit
five?
MS. KEISTER:
Yes.
JUDGE:
And Ms. Turkevich, did you have a chance to see these exhibits?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes.
JUDGE:
So you are familiar with what the plaintiff's referring to?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes, very much so.
JUDGE:
So proposed exhibit five is what, Ms. Keister?
MS. KEISTER:
It is a screenshot of Nikki Turkevich saying a whole lot of stuff, and
in it she posts my address publicly.
JUDGE:
And where did you get this screenshot from?
MS. KEISTER:
From a website called kiwifarms.st.
JUDGE:
Who took this screenshot?
MS. KEISTER:
I did.
JUDGE:
And how do you know... this seems to be like a very long document.
MS. KEISTER:
It is. It's at the very bottom of the screenshot. She posts my address.
I, um, I don't have a way to submit my original evidence that I
submitted with my request, I guess, 'cause I don't know how to do that —
where she asks people on that website to find out what I do for work and
gave them my address. And she also states what kind of car that I drive.
JUDGE:
So how do you know that —
MS. KEISTER:
In an attempt to get people to follow me.
JUDGE:
How do you know that —
MS. KEISTER:
And it's placed me in a state of fear.
JUDGE:
How do you know that it was the defendant who posted this?
MS. KEISTER:
Her username is Sekhmet666. She has a blue check mark next to that. It
is verified that it is her — it says, "Nikki associated with Tarl
Warwick." And she's admitted to this being her multiple times online.
MS. KEISTER:
Am I allowed to continue?
JUDGE:
No, I'm trying to take a look at the... Okay.
JUDGE:
Mm-hmm. So are you —
MS. KEISTER:
Oh.
JUDGE:
Are you submitting this document? Which is very long, again. Could you —
are you looking — are you saying that towards the bottom of the document
above the emojis, it looks like an eye, a thumbs up, a medal. Is that
the paragraph you're referring to?
MS. KEISTER:
Yes. Yes. She posts my address as Seventeen Crescent Street, and this is
my address that I'm currently at.
JUDGE:
And I can't determine from this proposed exhibit what statements the
defendant allegedly made on this website and what other users have said.
It almost looks like that part of that quote could be an expansion of
something the research vlogger said earlier.
MS. KEISTER:
It's not. It's a response to her.
JUDGE:
So in order to introduce a document into evidence, there needs to be —
it needs to be reliable, and it needs to be relevant. So if in fact the
defendant did post to this website, it would be relevant to your case
here. But what I'm struggling with is whether or not it can be reliably
attributed to the defendant. Ms. Turkevich, are you familiar with this
document?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes. Um, can I speak to give some context on it?
JUDGE:
No, I'm just going to — you'll have a chance to state your case when the
plaintiff's testimony is done. What I'm going to ask you is if you have
any objection to the court admitting this proposed document.
MS. TURKEVICH:
No, that's fine.
JUDGE:
Okay. Since there's no objection, admitted. Go ahead, Ms. Keister.
MS. KEISTER:
Uh, I would also like to address my first exhibit, or enter that into
evidence. The first exhibit —
JUDGE:
Hold on one second. Just one — okay. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry, I'm just
taking notes.
MS. KEISTER:
Okay. The first exhibit shows Nikki responding to a post that I made. I
am using the username Laylithe on that site.
JUDGE:
This is exhibit one?
MS. KEISTER:
So that — yes. So that block text that says, "Laylithe said," that's
something that I had said on the site. Underneath it is her response. It
starts with her saying, "Dream on, bitch." And at the end of that
paragraph, it says, "He," in reference to Tarl Warwick, "just wants you
to not testify against him so this legal nonsense can disappear."
JUDGE:
I, I can't find any way of... Well, let me ask the defendant — any
objection to admission of exhibit one?
MS. TURKEVICH:
No objection.
JUDGE:
Exhibit one is admitted. Okay. So — what in particular, as to this
exhibit, do you think is relevant for the court to consider?
MS. KEISTER:
Um, it... She's been harassing and intimidating me on this website in
order to get me to not testify against Tarl Warwick, who committed
several crimes against me. And as you can see, she's laughing, and she
thinks that it's funny.
JUDGE:
Mm-hmm.
MS. KEISTER:
And her username is Sekhmet. It ties into the first one that I tried to
address, where she posts my address publicly and told people what kind
of car that I drive. With my original request, I was able to submit the
screenshot of that. I didn't do it in this list of exhibits 'cause I
didn't know if I needed to. And I've had contact with other people on
this site that do live locally. One of them reassured me that he wasn't
going to stalk and harass me.
JUDGE:
You can't testify as to something — you're calling them as a witness.
MS. KEISTER:
Right. I — okay, sorry.
JUDGE:
That's okay. What is it specifically about exhibit one that you allege
supports stalking behavior?
MS. KEISTER:
It verifies the other part of her posting my address and asking people
to surveil and monitor me.
JUDGE:
Where is that?
MS. KEISTER:
Where is what?
JUDGE:
That she's asking other people to surveil and monitor you.
MS. KEISTER:
That was included with my original request for the no-stalking order.
JUDGE:
Do you have that prepared as —
MS. KEISTER:
But apparently — I'm now being told that I can't use that in this
hearing, I guess. I didn't know —
JUDGE:
No, it's admitted. Ms. Turkevich, do you have — you received a copy of
the initial filing in this case, correct?
MS. TURKEVICH:
I did. I can't find the paper copy, but I have no objection to any of
this being offered into evidence.
JUDGE:
So, Ms. Keister, are you referring to the text message that you filed
with the complaint as an exhibit?
MS. KEISTER:
Yes.
JUDGE:
And when was that posted?
MS. KEISTER:
I am uncertain.
JUDGE:
Do you have a ballpark?
MS. KEISTER:
Uh, January. January or February of this year.
JUDGE:
Let me see. And there's no objection to this being admitted, defendant?
MS. TURKEVICH:
No — no, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
That would be — seven?
MS. KEISTER:
I think nine would be her next number.
JUDGE:
Okay. So we'll label that text message, since there is no objection from
the defendant, as exhibit nine for today's hearing. So exhibit nine —
MS. KEISTER:
Thank you.
JUDGE:
— is admitted, along with exhibits four and five. So would you — do you
have any other evidence for the court to consider?
MS. KEISTER:
Um, yes. I'm sorry, can I have just a moment? I'm really —
JUDGE:
You may.
MS. KEISTER:
I need to calm down for just a second. Thank you.
MS. KEISTER:
Okay, Your Honor, I would like to admit exhibit six into evidence,
please.
JUDGE:
And what is exhibit six?
MS. KEISTER:
Exhibit six is another screenshot from the same website, where Nikki
posts pictures of Tarl's phone and private messages between him and I,
to intimidate me online.
JUDGE:
Any objection to that exhibit being admitted?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Nope. No objection, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
So exhibit six is admitted. Anything else?
MS. KEISTER:
I think that — that's... I mean, that would be all. The other exhibits
that I submitted were just to expand upon the ones that I felt were
important. It was just to provide the full context of the post, so.
JUDGE:
In addition to your exhibits, there are other components that you have
to prove under the statute in order to obtain a final order.
MS. KEISTER:
Okay.
JUDGE:
Do you have any other testimony you'd like to make on the record? You
can.
MS. KEISTER:
Well, I will. I —
JUDGE:
You're unmuted, so.
MS. KEISTER:
Can you repeat the question, Your Honor?
JUDGE:
Sure. In order for the court to issue a final order against stalking,
plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
individuals — the plaintiff and the defendant — are not family members
as defined by statute. Then the plaintiff has to come forward with facts
that support a finding that include, but are not limited to, that the
defendant followed, monitored, surveilled, threatened, or interfered
with the property of the plaintiff. And that that conduct occurred on
more than one occasion.
MS. KEISTER:
Okay. Well, I feel as though exhibit six that I submitted shows that she
continually tried to interfere in my life by posting private messages
between me and her partner at the time — my ex — or posting my address
publicly and asking other people to surveil me and monitor me around
town on a different occasion. And her stating that she just wanted me to
not testify against the same ex. All of this — I don't really know how
to tie it in, sorry. But whenever she did upload my address, I was
placed in a state of fear, and I didn't feel safe leaving my home. I
have three small children that I have to take care of. And it made me
feel unsafe.
JUDGE:
Okay. Thank you. Do you have any other evidence? Any other testimony?
MS. KEISTER:
That's it.
JUDGE:
Thank you. Ms. Turkevich, I'm gonna ask you to raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give now under
consideration shall be the truth under the pains and penalties of
perjury?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE:
Okay. Please state your name for the record.
MS. TURKEVICH:
Nikki Turkevich.
JUDGE:
And you've heard the allegations, and you've heard what the plaintiff
said. This is your time now to make your argument for why the court
should not issue an order.
MS. TURKEVICH:
Right. Thank you. I'm sorry, um, it is very anxiety-riddled. Um, I did
not ask — it's clear from the screenshots that I did not ask people to
surveil her. Um, a man specifically verified my employment, and you can
see from the comment, I said, "video game" — you know, now you should
see what she does for work. She made claims that she makes more money
than her ex, Dylan. And yet, like I said in the comment, her car is
always there. And, um, the reason, Your Honor — [chuckles] — the reason
why I released her address is because people had released a different
address for her. And I'm not sure if that is the address where Dylan
lived — but I was the one that was fearing for her safety. They released
a false address on the site, Cubby Farms, and said, "You know, this is
an address that we found linked to Samantha's name." I wanted them to
have the real address because she has made violent threats to the people
on the website and just confirmed her violent nature. So I didn't want
them to take it out on whoever lived at that random address. And it
might have been mentioned in one of her posts — I'm not sure of the
address, if it was Adam Street or something. And then, um, Samantha is
outright lying when she's saying I was trying to stop her from
testifying. I never tried to intimidate her from testifying. None of my
comments were for that. The private text that I shared between her and
Tarl — if that was exhibit six — she... what I was saying is, he was
basically love bombing her in order to get her to not testify against
him, because it is because of her that he has all the charges against
him right now. He has a warrant out for his arrest, and he's actually
running from it right now. But, um, so I never directly had any contact
with her. That's why this is a very spurious — I, I apologize for
laughing. I meant no disrespect to the court. I'm laughing because this
is just lies and exaggeration. I never contacted her personally. Um,
she's the one that started commenting about me on the site, because we
were involved with the same guy. Um, she calls him her ex. But however,
while she still had a restraining order against him, she's the one that
contacted him, and then I — he brought it up when she started going out
with him again. So, you know, she's the one that is interfering with my
life, and she's making the same sort of comments to me on that website.
So I've never interfered with her life or contacted her in real life,
aside from driving by her apartment, which was coerced from Tarl
Warwick, who — you know — her and him have a very interesting history.
And I do admit that I drove by her house when I was with him, but now
that we're broken up, I have no interest in her or contacting her. And
so I just wanna be able to defend myself.
JUDGE:
Um — so you do admit that you drove by her apartment?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yeah, last year when I was with Tarl, because he wanted to check up on
her. And that's one of the charges against him right now — for breaking
the restraining order, because he would still have very much contact
with her despite the protective order that she had against him.
JUDGE:
And was the purpose behind driving by her apartment — to see if she was
there?
MS. TURKEVICH:
But I have no more reason to do that. I don't know, Your Honor. He's
just very narcissistic. So when he wanted me to do it, I would just, you
know... It's not like it's out of the way. I would just drive by. I
don't know. Honestly, I don't know what his purpose was. It really just
seemed like he just really wanted to keep in her life and keep contact
with her, but I had no desire to.
JUDGE:
Who was operating the vehicle?
MS. TURKEVICH:
I was. I was driving him. My motivation was to appease my abusive
partner. That's all.
JUDGE:
Do you have any other evidence that you'd like the court to consider?
MS. TURKEVICH:
I don't have any evidence. I mean, 'cause that's the thing. It's too
late, Your Honor, to submit screenshots. Like, I can't just say, "Oh,
look, I have this screenshot right now," right?
JUDGE:
No, they need to be submitted ahead of time so they're on the record if
they're admitted as an exhibit.
MS. TURKEVICH:
I understand. That's fine. I have nothing else. I just, you know... That
was my statement, which I believe adequately refutes all these charges.
Thank you.
JUDGE:
Both of you have an opportunity to engage in cross-examination. I would
facilitate that — if either of you — I'd start with the plaintiff. If
you have any questions that you'd like me to ask the defendant on cross-
examination, I can do that. Do you have any questions you'd like me to
ask the defendant, Ms. Keister?
MS. KEISTER:
I don't, Your Honor. It's just become very clear at this hearing today
that I was — I wasn't even aware that she had driven by my apartment,
and I'm afraid that this is gonna continue even though —
JUDGE:
You'll have a chance to make any closing statements you want. Okay.
MS. KEISTER:
I don't think — yeah. Okay. Um, thank you. I don't have any questions.
JUDGE:
Thank you. Ms. Turkevich, do you have any questions for the plaintiff?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Yes. Samantha Keister just stated that she never even knew that I drove
by her apartment. However, I would direct your attention to her original
complaint — in her original complaint, she wrote that I drove by her
apartment. She already knew. This is just one example of her many lies.
This is all lies and fabrication.
JUDGE:
This is — I'm gonna give you an opportunity to make closing statements.
But it sounds like you don't have any questions for the plaintiff.
MS. TURKEVICH:
The question is, why did you write that I was driving past your house in
the original complaint and just now say that you didn't know that I
drove by your house? It's directly contradicting itself. Which one is
it?
JUDGE:
Ms. Keister, in your original complaint, you noted that she had been
driving by your house, and now you claim to have just learned that. Can
you explain that?
MS. KEISTER:
I don't have access to my original complaint. Does it state that?
JUDGE:
In the original complaint, it says, "I have seen her car at my building,
and I believe that she has rented —"
MS. KEISTER:
Yes —
JUDGE:
— an Airbnb below my apartment."
MS. KEISTER:
I saw it parked. I saw it parked. I didn't see it driving by.
JUDGE:
Okay. Any other questions?
MS. KEISTER:
So when I say I didn't know that she was driving by to monitor me — I
meant I didn't know she had been purposefully driving by to monitor me.
And I have asked my landlord, who rents the Airbnb below me, before, if
she had rented out that Airbnb, and he said he couldn't give me that
information. So anyway, I don't believe that my statements contradicted
themselves.
JUDGE:
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Turkevich?
MS. TURKEVICH:
Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
JUDGE:
Okay. I'm going to step off the bench for a few minutes to review what's
been presented, and I will come back with my decision shortly. So please
don't disconnect from the hearing.
JUDGE:
Are we all set? We're back on the record in the matter of Keister versus
Turkevich, docket 26-ST-0081, and the court has considered the evidence
and the testimony from the parties here today. Before I announce the
decision, I do need to know what the date of birth is for the defendant.
JUDGE:
Oh, you're muted.
MS. TURKEVICH:
Nine two eighty-two. Thank you.
JUDGE:
So the court will make the following findings of fact by a preponderance
of the evidence. But before I go into that, I do want to review what the
law is. To issue an anti-stalking order, the trial court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has stalked the
plaintiff. Twelve VSA Section 5133(d). Stalking means to engage
purposefully in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that
would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or to
suffer emotional distress. That's 12 VSA 5131(6). A course of conduct is
defined as two or more acts over a period of time, however short, in
which a person follows, monitors, surveils, threatens or makes threats
about another person, or interferes with another person's property. And
again, 12 VSA 5131(1)(A)(i). Quote: "Threatening for purposes of the
civil stalking statute shall not be construed to require an express or
overt threat, but does include constitutionally protected activity. A
statement may constitute a threat even if the speaker does not intend to
carry out the threat. The question is whether an ordinary person
familiar with the context of the communication would interpret it as a
threat of injury." And if you would like more information on that and
the Vermont Supreme Court's rationale, you can look at Brian Tomlinson
versus Kathleen Lovell — that's a rocket docket decision that was issued
at the end of twenty twenty-five. That appellate docket is 25-AP-207.
JUDGE:
As for the facts that were introduced, the court finds the following
facts by a preponderance of the evidence in this matter. Defendant is
the ex-girlfriend of plaintiff's ex-boyfriend, so the parties are not
family or household members for purposes of the statute. The court does
find that while defendant was dating her ex-boyfriend, she intentionally
drove by plaintiff's residence in order to monitor her. Defendant claims
that she did this at the direction of her boyfriend. However, the court
notes that defendant was in actual physical control of the motor
vehicle, and ultimately, by being in control of the vehicle, it was her
decision to drive by the home. The court also finds that defendant made
several posts about plaintiff on an online platform. One of those posts
identified personal information about plaintiff, including plaintiff's
home address and the color and model of plaintiff's vehicle. In another
post, defendant asks others to find out how plaintiff is earning money,
and again reveals her personal information, including her home address.
Defendant does not deny these posts, but rather tried to explain the
context in which she posted them. However, the court is not persuaded by
these arguments. Under Vermont law, a threatening statement doesn't lose
its character by couching it in the hope that the threat will be carried
out by others — and here we have some of those types of statements made
by the defendant. Even though the court finds that the defendant did not
have any direct communication with the plaintiff, viewed in the whole
context of this case, the court does find that a reasonable person would
interpret defendant's actions and posts to constitute stalking behavior
for purposes of a civil stalking order.
JUDGE:
So the court finds that there is sufficient evidence to find that
defendant engaged in two or more acts purposefully directed at the
plaintiff constituting stalking behavior for purposes of the civil
stalking order statute. So the court will grant plaintiff's request for
a final order and make findings that on more than one occasion, the
defendant followed, monitored, or surveilled the plaintiff, and the
defendant should have known that this would cause a reasonable person to
fear for his or her own safety. The plaintiff did testify that as a
result of defendant's actions, she was placed in a state of fear and
felt unsafe in her own home. Therefore, the court will order defendant
to stay away from plaintiff, Samantha Keister. Stay away means do not
talk to, telephone, text, email, or use any other form of communication,
and do not ask other people to give messages either. This includes on
social media platforms. Defendant is also ordered to remain three
hundred feet away from the plaintiff. These types of orders cannot be in
place for an indeterminate amount of time — in other words, they have to
expire after a certain period. And the court believes that in this case,
six months is an appropriate period of time for an order to be in place.
So this order shall remain in effect until September fourth, twenty
twenty-six at twelve PM. Ms. Keister, if you feel like there's been
conduct by defendant between now and the expiration of this order,
before the order expires, you can file a motion to try to extend the
order. But for now, this order remains in effect until September fourth,
twenty twenty-six at noon. And I will let Ms. Turkevich know that you've
heard the findings and the order of the court, so you must abide by this
order beginning immediately. That concludes today's hearing. We will be
in recess. Thank you.
